This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:... in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not...

What group do you know of that can defend an idea that they disagree with?

At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:... in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not...

What group do you know of that can defend an idea that they disagree with?

Sincere academics, a position which many liberals arrogate. Many normal people aside, usually people for whom said position is not a big part of their self-identification.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

I think the reason most liberals try to defend Islam is to protect the safe vote they get from the Muslim population. At least, Democratic politicians don't for that reason. Since liberal political leaders don't criticize Islam, their followers are probably less likely to as well.

"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

I think the reason most liberals try to defend Islam is to protect the safe vote they get from the Muslim population. At least, Democratic politicians don't for that reason. Since liberal political leaders don't criticize Islam, their followers are probably less likely to as well.

It's more than a case of deigning not to criticize, though. It's a case of vociferously defending them even after a Muslim murders fifty people for being gay. It's an absolute refusal to even take a step down that line of inquiry, and the hysterical vituperation of anyone who does.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

I think the reason most liberals try to defend Islam is to protect the safe vote they get from the Muslim population. At least, Democratic politicians don't for that reason. Since liberal political leaders don't criticize Islam, their followers are probably less likely to as well.

It's more than a case of deigning not to criticize, though. It's a case of vociferously defending them even after a Muslim murders fifty people for being gay. It's an absolute refusal to even take a step down that line of inquiry, and the hysterical vituperation of anyone who does.

Even so, I think the same reason for doing so applies.

"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

I think the reason most liberals try to defend Islam is to protect the safe vote they get from the Muslim population. At least, Democratic politicians don't for that reason. Since liberal political leaders don't criticize Islam, their followers are probably less likely to as well.

It's more than a case of deigning not to criticize, though. It's a case of vociferously defending them even after a Muslim murders fifty people for being gay. It's an absolute refusal to even take a step down that line of inquiry, and the hysterical vituperation of anyone who does.

Even so, I think the same reason for doing so applies.

Monkey see monkey do? I dislike the left in general, but I don't think that they're all human vegetables.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

I think the reason most liberals try to defend Islam is to protect the safe vote they get from the Muslim population. At least, Democratic politicians don't for that reason. Since liberal political leaders don't criticize Islam, their followers are probably less likely to as well.

It's more than a case of deigning not to criticize, though. It's a case of vociferously defending them even after a Muslim murders fifty people for being gay. It's an absolute refusal to even take a step down that line of inquiry, and the hysterical vituperation of anyone who does.

Even so, I think the same reason for doing so applies.

Monkey see monkey do? I dislike the left in general, but I don't think that they're all human vegetables.

Not quite monkey see monkey do, but I think the lack of reaction from politicians towards Islam makes it *less likely* for liberal citizens to criticize Islam.

Also, I haven't been paying too much attention to the debates for the sake of sanity, but I thought that liberals have just been deflecting to attacking guns and evading rather than actively defending Islam.

"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly.

Replace issues of gender with LGBT and you have similar gist being said

I think the reason most liberals try to defend Islam is to protect the safe vote they get from the Muslim population. At least, Democratic politicians don't for that reason. Since liberal political leaders don't criticize Islam, their followers are probably less likely to as well.

It's more than a case of deigning not to criticize, though. It's a case of vociferously defending them even after a Muslim murders fifty people for being gay. It's an absolute refusal to even take a step down that line of inquiry, and the hysterical vituperation of anyone who does.

Even so, I think the same reason for doing so applies.

Monkey see monkey do? I dislike the left in general, but I don't think that they're all human vegetables.

Not quite monkey see monkey do, but I think the lack of reaction from politicians towards Islam makes it *less likely* for liberal citizens to criticize Islam.

Also, I haven't been paying too much attention to the debates for the sake of sanity, but I thought that liberals have just been deflecting to attacking guns and evading rather than actively defending Islam.

This isn't from some list, I just pulled these from the front page of Yahoo!

There's this incredibly stupid article, which claims that the main problem was that the killer was gay and wasn't accepted, and that Islam in particular has nothing to do with it. They then go on to bash one anti-gay Christian preacher. It's disgraceful.https://www.washingtonpost.com...

And this one, talking about how the Muslim community feels threatened. No article, of course, on how the gay community feels threatened.http://www.pbs.org...

And this is just the news media, which has a liberal tilt. On social media you can find some pretty ridiculous stuff, and the vast majority of the staunch support of homosexuality, and the denunciation of Islam for condemning it, has come from the right. The Gay intelligentsia has been particularly revolting, responding to the unprecedented outpouring of support from the right with pithy vitriol, and remaining obstinately mute when it comes to Muslims, a religious group which is demographically exponentially more hostile to homosexuality than conservative Christianity.

I've yet to see a single leftist dish out the same level of opprobrium that they reserve for conservatives who refuse to bake them a cake to another religion which literally promotes their execution, even after someone has taken upon themselves to carry it out. I'm not expecting them to turn rabidly anti-Islamic. I'm just expecting a 'huh, maybe Muslims aren't cuddly towards gay people after all.'

Just imagine the headlines if a hardline Christian had carried out this attack, and compare to what we have received. It's disgraceful.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly.

Replace issues of gender with LGBT and you have similar gist being said

Exactly. Prominent forces on the right are now pushing the narrative that non-Western societies are barbaric and inferior, and they are rapidly gaining traction because the Left in this country is maddeningly stupid and self-absorbed. Pretending that Islam is compatible with feminism and LGBT rights is just stupid, and it certainly isn't helping Muslims.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly.

Replace issues of gender with LGBT and you have similar gist being said

Exactly. Prominent forces on the right are now pushing the narrative that non-Western societies are barbaric and inferior, and they are rapidly gaining traction because the Left in this country is maddeningly stupid and self-absorbed. Pretending that Islam is compatible with feminism and LGBT rights is just stupid, and it certainly isn't helping Muslims.

True, though I'd say it's less the fault of any particular scions of the Left or far Right, much more the remnants of previous cultural imperialism. While the mindset of ethnocentrism may not be the same, the idea of categorically suppressing any opposing cultures for the sake of "spreading civilization" is still present, just thinly veiled under the guise of "progress".

At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly.

Replace issues of gender with LGBT and you have similar gist being said

Exactly. Prominent forces on the right are now pushing the narrative that non-Western societies are barbaric and inferior, and they are rapidly gaining traction because the Left in this country is maddeningly stupid and self-absorbed. Pretending that Islam is compatible with feminism and LGBT rights is just stupid, and it certainly isn't helping Muslims.

True, though I'd say it's less the fault of any particular scions of the Left or far Right, much more the remnants of previous cultural imperialism. While the mindset of ethnocentrism may not be the same, the idea of categorically suppressing any opposing cultures for the sake of "spreading civilization" is still present, just thinly veiled under the guise of "progress".

I think the left for a time intelligently defended cultural relativism and a 'big view' of history, in context and nuanced. Their recent onset of insanity has thrown all of that into the garbage, and I think that there's definitely been a resurgence into the vaccuum that is liberal discourse.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

Question......

Which political lean do you believe in? Example, right, left, centrist etc

I think the reason most liberals try to defend Islam is to protect the safe vote they get from the Muslim population. At least, Democratic politicians don't for that reason. Since liberal political leaders don't criticize Islam, their followers are probably less likely to as well.

Liberals critique Islam, however we will not go to the extent as many right wing conservatives do as paint a broad brush. Conservatives and the far right tend to be hypocrites when it comes to labels. White Christians can have mental disorders but Muslims can't is one of the many hypocrisies I can think of when it comes to the right.

At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

Question......

Which political lean do you believe in? Example, right, left, centrist etc

I'm kind of a weirdo. I'm an atheist with sympathies towards some enlightenment thinkers, Machiavelli, and early twentieth century Catholic thought.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

Question......

Which political lean do you believe in? Example, right, left, centrist etc

I'm kind of a weirdo. I'm an atheist with sympathies towards some enlightenment thinkers, Machiavelli, and early twentieth century Catholic thought.

Which political lean do you believe in? Example, right, left, centrist etc

I'm kind of a weirdo. I'm an atheist with sympathies towards some enlightenment thinkers, Machiavelli, and early twentieth century Catholic thought.

Ok...That is talking around my question. You mentioned the left....

So let me state my question again.

What is your political lean?

Are you asking for a political compass result or something?

First of all, I think that classifying political stances by comparing them to the stances held by the General Estates is silly.

I have taken the test, and I think that I was about a third of the way down the libertarian axis and one tick out of ten to the right. Overall, pretty close to the center.

I don't think that I can really sum up my political views simply. When it comes to structural considerations, I support republicanism in the classical model (Machiavelli). When it comes to economics, I support distributism. I support full free speech, and also think that traditional institutions more often than not have important functions and ought to be preserved. Overall, practicality supports idealism.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

Which political lean do you believe in? Example, right, left, centrist etc

I'm kind of a weirdo. I'm an atheist with sympathies towards some enlightenment thinkers, Machiavelli, and early twentieth century Catholic thought.

Ok...That is talking around my question. You mentioned the left....

So let me state my question again.

What is your political lean?

Are you asking for a political compass result or something?

First of all, I think that classifying political stances by comparing them to the stances held by the General Estates is silly.

I have taken the test, and I think that I was about a third of the way down the libertarian axis and one tick out of ten to the right. Overall, pretty close to the center.

I don't think that I can really sum up my political views simply. When it comes to structural considerations, I support republicanism in the classical model (Machiavelli). When it comes to economics, I support distributism. I support full free speech, and also think that traditional institutions more often than not have important functions and ought to be preserved. Overall, practicality supports idealism.

SMH you made a thread about "liberalism" yet cannot give me a direct answer.....I'm not talking about the political compass. You see, I'm liberal politically, yet conservative in other areas however I identify myself as a progressive liberal. You see, that is a direct answer. Why can't you do that?

Which political lean do you believe in? Example, right, left, centrist etc

I'm kind of a weirdo. I'm an atheist with sympathies towards some enlightenment thinkers, Machiavelli, and early twentieth century Catholic thought.

Ok...That is talking around my question. You mentioned the left....

So let me state my question again.

What is your political lean?

Are you asking for a political compass result or something?

First of all, I think that classifying political stances by comparing them to the stances held by the General Estates is silly.

I have taken the test, and I think that I was about a third of the way down the libertarian axis and one tick out of ten to the right. Overall, pretty close to the center.

I don't think that I can really sum up my political views simply. When it comes to structural considerations, I support republicanism in the classical model (Machiavelli). When it comes to economics, I support distributism. I support full free speech, and also think that traditional institutions more often than not have important functions and ought to be preserved. Overall, practicality supports idealism.

SMH you made a thread about "liberalism" yet cannot give me a direct answer.....I'm not talking about the political compass. You see, I'm liberal politically, yet conservative in other areas however I identify myself as a progressive liberal. You see, that is a direct answer. Why can't you do that?

Because I don't 'identify' as a political ideology. I'm an independent, politically. I think that ideology doesn't mix well with politics, because pragmatism is always sacrificed in order to shoehorn idealism into complicated problems.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

Which political lean do you believe in? Example, right, left, centrist etc

I'm kind of a weirdo. I'm an atheist with sympathies towards some enlightenment thinkers, Machiavelli, and early twentieth century Catholic thought.

Ok...That is talking around my question. You mentioned the left....

So let me state my question again.

What is your political lean?

Are you asking for a political compass result or something?

First of all, I think that classifying political stances by comparing them to the stances held by the General Estates is silly.

I have taken the test, and I think that I was about a third of the way down the libertarian axis and one tick out of ten to the right. Overall, pretty close to the center.

I don't think that I can really sum up my political views simply. When it comes to structural considerations, I support republicanism in the classical model (Machiavelli). When it comes to economics, I support distributism. I support full free speech, and also think that traditional institutions more often than not have important functions and ought to be preserved. Overall, practicality supports idealism.

SMH you made a thread about "liberalism" yet cannot give me a direct answer.....I'm not talking about the political compass. You see, I'm liberal politically, yet conservative in other areas however I identify myself as a progressive liberal. You see, that is a direct answer. Why can't you do that?

Because I don't 'identify' as a political ideology. I'm an independent, politically. I think that ideology doesn't mix well with politics, because pragmatism is always sacrificed in order to shoehorn idealism into complicated problems.

So if you don't identify with any political ideology why make a ridiculous thread about "liberalism?"

First of all, I think that classifying political stances by comparing them to the stances held by the General Estates is silly.

I have taken the test, and I think that I was about a third of the way down the libertarian axis and one tick out of ten to the right. Overall, pretty close to the center.

I don't think that I can really sum up my political views simply. When it comes to structural considerations, I support republicanism in the classical model (Machiavelli). When it comes to economics, I support distributism. I support full free speech, and also think that traditional institutions more often than not have important functions and ought to be preserved. Overall, practicality supports idealism.

SMH you made a thread about "liberalism" yet cannot give me a direct answer.....I'm not talking about the political compass. You see, I'm liberal politically, yet conservative in other areas however I identify myself as a progressive liberal. You see, that is a direct answer. Why can't you do that?

Because I don't 'identify' as a political ideology. I'm an independent, politically. I think that ideology doesn't mix well with politics, because pragmatism is always sacrificed in order to shoehorn idealism into complicated problems.

So if you don't identify with any political ideology why make a ridiculous thread about "liberalism?"

Because other people identify as a political ideology, and I thought that that ideology ought to criticized on certain points. And because this a debate website, and that sort of thing is generally encouraged. Why are you quizzing me on my political ideology instead of responding to the content of my 'ridiculous' thread? Surely such ridiculous observations ought to be easy enough to debunk!

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

Liberals in general are the most violent, intollerant, hateful, bigoted, racists on Earth...unless you pat their ego or agree with them...

"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

From the above:

"I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology."

"For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible."

Can you expand on the meaning of these two quotes of yours and explain how these two stances are substantively different?

"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz

At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

From the above:

"I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology."

"For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible."

Can you expand on the meaning of these two quotes of yours and explain how these two stances are substantively different?

My stance is rooted in pragmatism. I recognize that Islam is hostile towards gay people, but that it's also a deeply seated component of a lot of cultures, and that attempting to remove it from those cultures will cause more harm than good in the long run. But I also don't want to import that culture en masse to secular democracies which do not hold those values. The leftist position is that Islam is not hostile towards gay people (or that it does not hold views on women which are incompatible with feminism), and that there is therefore no good reason to restrict immigration and anyone who wishes to do so is a racist bigot. The former stance is rooted in skepticism of Whiggish utopian thinking, while the latter is rooted in willful ignorance of what Islam is.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

Liberals in general are the most violent, intollerant, hateful, bigoted, racists on Earth...unless you pat their ego or agree with them...

At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

Liberals in general are the most violent, intollerant, hateful, bigoted, racists on Earth...unless you pat their ego or agree with them...

Prove that I am violent

Are you a liberal?

#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

At 6/16/2016 9:37:02 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:This is partly inspired by something which I recently read on political self-segregation, forgiveness, and tolerance. (http://slatestarcodex.com...)

It opens by citing the G. K. Chesterton story The Secret of Father Brown. In the beginning of the story, a beloved nobleman returns after killing his unpopular brother in a duel. He is feeling very guilty after the fact, and the townspeople wish to forgive him for the killing. The town priest, however, refuses, only offering to forgive the man after a period of penance and self-reflections. The townspeople are outraged, and accuse the priest of being uncompassionate.

However, it soon surfaces that it was the unpopular brother who had killed the popular one, stolen his identity, and returned to the town. The people are outraged at the nobleman, and call for his execution. They are similar outraged when the priest offers to forgive the man if he is penitent. The priest responds in this way:

'It seems to me that you only pardon the sins that you don't really think sinful. You only forgive criminals when they commit what you don't regard as crimes, but rather as conventions. You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce. You forgive because there isn't anything to be forgiven.'

This, I think, is a disease which infects liberalism in particular, especially when it comes to Islam. Now, I've studied Islam pretty extensively compared to most people in the West. I grasp its doctrines and its history. I know that it takes a dim views on gays. And I still say 'Okay, this is a cultural difference, and we shouldn't try and 'civilize' people in the Middle East who adhere to this ideology.' Many people on the right are, to be honest, bigoted against Islam. They know what it is to some vague degree, they don't like it, and they think that the Middle East are bad people for believing in this ideology which they do not like. But people on the left are as well, because they cannot accept Islam without deluding themselves about what it is. Theirs is a dishonest bigotry, cloaked in self-deception, and leading to a complete inability to deal with Islam in an intelligent way. For a liberal to say 'Islam disagrees with my deepest values, but that is a difference of opinion that I respect' would be difficult, and admirable. For a liberal to no-true-Scotsman at every Allahu Akbar is craven and distasteful. For a liberal to ignore the real danger which Islamization poses to gay people is irresponsible.

But American liberalism has always been profoundly bigoted, in most instances. Liberals overwhelmingly see those who profoundly disagree with them not as misguided, but as malevolent or profoundly stupid people fit to be treated poorly. 'I'm only intolerant of intolerance' is one particularly vapid maxim which the left enjoys trumpeting, not understanding that tolerance entails a degree of epistemic humility which eschews the assumption that any worldview is completely correct and a good metric by which to judge everyone around oneself. It is this same ugly tendency which leads to their crippling inability to respond to Islam in an intelligent manner: in order to maintain the victimization narrative, the left must defend Islam, but they are profoundly incapable, as a group, of defending an idea which they disagree with. So they have to pretend that Islam is something which it is not, and it will only cost them more as time goes on and the mummer's farce becomes more and more absurd.

All political groups engage in tribalism to a degree. But honest tribalism is better than dishonest tribalism, and liberals would be a lot less reviled if they climbed down from their high horse. A diminutive man on stilts looking down his nose at everyone commands ridicule, not respect.

Liberals in general are the most violent, intollerant, hateful, bigoted, racists on Earth...unless you pat their ego or agree with them...